Activision Co-Founder Says Anti-Activision Sentiment is "A Little Bit Strong"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The argument that Guitar Hero games needed expensive peripherals and didn't do well in the switch to digital would do better if they hasn't put out fifty titles. Or if they had put an emphasis on DLC, as Harmonix did with Rock Band. Or, if there was any real sense to it at all.
But from people saying "being a company is hard," I'm not sure I expect better excuses.
But from people saying "being a company is hard," I'm not sure I expect better excuses.
I feel totally ripped off with Black Ops on PC.
So Tough. I've had enough of this crap. That was the last penny you'll see from me. Activision is on my boycott list along with EA. I'm happy with other games and content, thank you very much.
So Tough. I've had enough of this crap. That was the last penny you'll see from me. Activision is on my boycott list along with EA. I'm happy with other games and content, thank you very much.
It's a business yes, however part of that business is to appeal to the customers, because if we're upset, we won't buy the products, or we'll make them the target of piracy to cut into their profits.
If Activsion would focus on making unique games, and even if we had to wait more than 3 years for it, maybe I've give them more sympathy, but when they want to milk a franchise like CoD with a new game every year and a half? I don't want to spend money on Call of Duty 94, or even Call of Duty: Mid modern warfare: future weapons invention time: spring break 34 either...I want to buy NEW franchises, games that use original ideas, that are built and crafted with love and care, not a Triple A game that's put under an extreme time budget and will have a single player campaign that was farted out that lasts only a few measly, boring hours.
Maybe if the entire company focused on making the gamers happy, we wouldn't be so pissy, what they need to spend money on isn't Assassin's Creed Space adventures of Ezio's 78th grandmother's assassination 12 but instead maybe a new PR department? And they're job is to listen to the CEO and to let him not speak to anyone other than them since every time he opens his mouth he says something stupid and insulting
If Activsion would focus on making unique games, and even if we had to wait more than 3 years for it, maybe I've give them more sympathy, but when they want to milk a franchise like CoD with a new game every year and a half? I don't want to spend money on Call of Duty 94, or even Call of Duty: Mid modern warfare: future weapons invention time: spring break 34 either...I want to buy NEW franchises, games that use original ideas, that are built and crafted with love and care, not a Triple A game that's put under an extreme time budget and will have a single player campaign that was farted out that lasts only a few measly, boring hours.
Maybe if the entire company focused on making the gamers happy, we wouldn't be so pissy, what they need to spend money on isn't Assassin's Creed Space adventures of Ezio's 78th grandmother's assassination 12 but instead maybe a new PR department? And they're job is to listen to the CEO and to let him not speak to anyone other than them since every time he opens his mouth he says something stupid and insulting
yeah, I always wondered how Valve has managed to be so generous AND stay in business, I mean during the Christmas sale you could buy full games for only £5, yet here we have companies like Activision who(funnily,was one of the few companies refusing to lower prices) charge nearly double the RRP for their games and £15 for most DLC and turm around and act like we're the pricks, WTF? This is why I like that Valve refuses to go public, because now they can spend their time making quality games and not answering to industry suits shouting about how they need 'Portal 8 - Wheatley's stolen Memory' out of production by march and have 'Half Life 2 - Episode 3 released before DNF(though that last one might actually be in unanimous agreement).phoenix352 said:
Yet needless to say, if he is making this disgusting profit on gaming, my conclusion is the ones who complain about Kotick policies are a loud minority of the gaming comunnity, otherwise he would be filling the paperwork for Activiosion Bankrupcy by now or begging mother Vivendi to bailout the company (Vivendi being the main shareholder of Activision).
Same here. I dunno, I went from a "hating him" state to a "hating and laughing at him" state.thefreeman0001 said:
OT: This guy is the devil's advocate. Really, there's just so many things wrong with Activision that I find really hard to defend the company.
I can only agree with him that Activision is a business, not a game company.
Well one people buy activisions op stuff, long as idiots buy the stuff activision will continue to charge 15 dollars for crappy dlc and 60 dollars for pc games.
ANd if piracy increases, which it will since they want to charge 60 dollars for pc games that cannot be traded or rented, unlike their console counterparts, then activision will run to the mantra that piracy is killing gaming.
For a guy that says the galactically stupid things bobby says to not understand why he is hated is hilarious. A guy that says things like "i want to take the fun out of making games" and "i wish i could charge more for games." A guy that squeezes the life out of every major ip they have.
Granted on the guitar hero front i got to say guitar hero was a fad, how many times could you repackage a game that is the same game over and over and sell it, gh was the kind of game that blows up and you hit it hard while the fad lasts. There was no reason to make the game over and over the game could have wholly been expanded via dlc packs and had a much longer shelf life if they had done it that way rather than try and sell the game over with some new bands, and then the bad pr of using bands wo their permission.
Between activision and EA i am really hard pressed to decide who i dislike more, i never buy activision games, but in the sticky position where i love some of the developers under EA's wing. But the one thing EA does have going for it besides that is the fact that they do not have a guy that runs their mouth as much as bob does and more often than not sticks his foot directly in his mouth.
ANd if piracy increases, which it will since they want to charge 60 dollars for pc games that cannot be traded or rented, unlike their console counterparts, then activision will run to the mantra that piracy is killing gaming.
For a guy that says the galactically stupid things bobby says to not understand why he is hated is hilarious. A guy that says things like "i want to take the fun out of making games" and "i wish i could charge more for games." A guy that squeezes the life out of every major ip they have.
Granted on the guitar hero front i got to say guitar hero was a fad, how many times could you repackage a game that is the same game over and over and sell it, gh was the kind of game that blows up and you hit it hard while the fad lasts. There was no reason to make the game over and over the game could have wholly been expanded via dlc packs and had a much longer shelf life if they had done it that way rather than try and sell the game over with some new bands, and then the bad pr of using bands wo their permission.
Between activision and EA i am really hard pressed to decide who i dislike more, i never buy activision games, but in the sticky position where i love some of the developers under EA's wing. But the one thing EA does have going for it besides that is the fact that they do not have a guy that runs their mouth as much as bob does and more often than not sticks his foot directly in his mouth.
Of course we all get that Activision needs to make money, and I'm sure IN THE SHORT TERM their strategy is very shareholder friendly.
However, what about THE LONG TERM, when all the gamers (Y'know, the people who actually give Activision their profits) get so sick of how they do things that they stop buying Activision's stuff on principle?
Then there will be no more business, no more money, and Activision will reap what they have sown and go under... the share holders won't be so happy then will they?
However, what about THE LONG TERM, when all the gamers (Y'know, the people who actually give Activision their profits) get so sick of how they do things that they stop buying Activision's stuff on principle?
Then there will be no more business, no more money, and Activision will reap what they have sown and go under... the share holders won't be so happy then will they?
It feels strange to read all the points you've made again and again whenever the Activision hate gets so over-the-top being reiterated by someone who might actually know what he's talking about. It gives me a sense of vaidation. The number of times I must have used the words 'the games industry is a business' and gotten called out for my mercenary ways is staggering.
Of course, will this have any effect on the rampant anti-Activisionism? No. Because once gamers are decided on something it would take brainwashing to make them admit they might have been wrong.
Of course, will this have any effect on the rampant anti-Activisionism? No. Because once gamers are decided on something it would take brainwashing to make them admit they might have been wrong.
I don't think the issue has ever been with video game companies needing to make a profit. That has been understood since the very beginning. The issue has increasingly been how far they are pushing their attempts to generate profits, and guys like Bobby Kotick in paticular are cash sucking vampires who want to wring every possible penny out of gamers, and who personally do not care about the core audience or the integrity of the product itself above and beyond what puts a few more pennies into their pocket right now. This mentality is also one where talent is rarely supported or cultivated, a developer group that isn't making money right now, or in a slump, is pretty much murdered, irregardless of past performance or potential plans that they might have.
Of course the biggest part of the problem isn't the game companies and executives like Bobby Kotick, the biggest part of the problem is us, the gamers. We keep buying games no matter how we're treated, just like junkies buy drugs. It doesn't matter how the drug dealer treats a junkie, they always come back because they want the high and don't do anything but whine about what they might have to do to get their drugs, or how the guy treats them, which means nothing since they always keep crawling back. Another good analogy to how we gamers behave would be battered wife syndrome, with us on the receiving end, and guys like Bobby Kotick beating us bloody, but hey, the makeup sex is worth it... right?
Bobby Kotick is a good guy from the perspective of the shareholders because he is getting the most money possible out of their products. On the other hand if we were to say "no" to the exploitation and stop buying those games, the shareholders are going to adapt to US because we have the money they want, and take what profit margin we're willing to give instead of getting nothing. If we were to crash a few big Activision releases, and point to guys like Kotick, he'd be history at lightspeed.
A good example of the problem is games like "Modern Warfare: Black Ops." sure it's a good game, but by buying it your basically waved an "I love Kotick, please beat me harder! I love to be exploited" flag. The bottom line was that as gamers the community that was crying about the problems all decided that when the shiny new product was waved in front of them they were going to forget every complaint they had about the publisher, including the whole fiasco with Infinity Ward, it's promised money (so much for supporting the devs!) and the ejection by corperate thugs. Now that everyone has their game, which is incidently the most profitable gaeme in history, people are back to whining, but it's even more irrelevent because you just sent a message to Activision that you don't care WHAT they do.
A lot of people like to cry when these points are made and say "Therumancer, don't put words into my mouth, I'm not a hypocrit or Kotick lover for buying the game", while the truth might hurt, that's exactly what your saying through your actions, and if you don't like the mirror I'm holding up don't buy Activision games. Either that or just stop whining about it, because I get sick of the complaints when people run right out and buy the products. It's kind of sad when someone might be posting in an anti-game industry thread (for activision or any other company) and one talking about how they are going to run right out and buy their newest product at the same time. I mean geez, it should be obvious why nothing ever improves.
At any rate, I do find it interesting that we're seeing some money being spent on spin control for Bobby Kotick, I suppose that's something at least. Still, I think most of his defenses miss the point. I mean I get it, publishing games are hard, but at the same time that doesn't justify a lot of the things he's said.
What's more even during this his justification of things like cutting off Guitar Hero is in of itself a bit of misdirection. I can see the entire point about how a game with a physical component doesn't play well with the idea of wanting everything to go digital. However he, like a lot of people, are pushing the idea that digital is inevitable and they are "going with the flow, and evolution of the industry" when that's really not the case, they are trying to force the digital issue because it gives them greater control over the product, and raises their profit margins, at the expense of the consumer who loses that control, and winds up paying the same amount of money for a much cheaper product when you cut out packaging and distribution and so on. That's an issue right there that gamers themselves need to head off, people complain about a lot of the digital stuff, but we still keep pariticipating in it. If we stopped buying digital products, then the industry would produce the products we as a group still generally prefer. A "disc in hand" that isn't dependant on online connections, third party services remaining in existance, and similar things.
Of course the biggest part of the problem isn't the game companies and executives like Bobby Kotick, the biggest part of the problem is us, the gamers. We keep buying games no matter how we're treated, just like junkies buy drugs. It doesn't matter how the drug dealer treats a junkie, they always come back because they want the high and don't do anything but whine about what they might have to do to get their drugs, or how the guy treats them, which means nothing since they always keep crawling back. Another good analogy to how we gamers behave would be battered wife syndrome, with us on the receiving end, and guys like Bobby Kotick beating us bloody, but hey, the makeup sex is worth it... right?
Bobby Kotick is a good guy from the perspective of the shareholders because he is getting the most money possible out of their products. On the other hand if we were to say "no" to the exploitation and stop buying those games, the shareholders are going to adapt to US because we have the money they want, and take what profit margin we're willing to give instead of getting nothing. If we were to crash a few big Activision releases, and point to guys like Kotick, he'd be history at lightspeed.
A good example of the problem is games like "Modern Warfare: Black Ops." sure it's a good game, but by buying it your basically waved an "I love Kotick, please beat me harder! I love to be exploited" flag. The bottom line was that as gamers the community that was crying about the problems all decided that when the shiny new product was waved in front of them they were going to forget every complaint they had about the publisher, including the whole fiasco with Infinity Ward, it's promised money (so much for supporting the devs!) and the ejection by corperate thugs. Now that everyone has their game, which is incidently the most profitable gaeme in history, people are back to whining, but it's even more irrelevent because you just sent a message to Activision that you don't care WHAT they do.
A lot of people like to cry when these points are made and say "Therumancer, don't put words into my mouth, I'm not a hypocrit or Kotick lover for buying the game", while the truth might hurt, that's exactly what your saying through your actions, and if you don't like the mirror I'm holding up don't buy Activision games. Either that or just stop whining about it, because I get sick of the complaints when people run right out and buy the products. It's kind of sad when someone might be posting in an anti-game industry thread (for activision or any other company) and one talking about how they are going to run right out and buy their newest product at the same time. I mean geez, it should be obvious why nothing ever improves.
At any rate, I do find it interesting that we're seeing some money being spent on spin control for Bobby Kotick, I suppose that's something at least. Still, I think most of his defenses miss the point. I mean I get it, publishing games are hard, but at the same time that doesn't justify a lot of the things he's said.
What's more even during this his justification of things like cutting off Guitar Hero is in of itself a bit of misdirection. I can see the entire point about how a game with a physical component doesn't play well with the idea of wanting everything to go digital. However he, like a lot of people, are pushing the idea that digital is inevitable and they are "going with the flow, and evolution of the industry" when that's really not the case, they are trying to force the digital issue because it gives them greater control over the product, and raises their profit margins, at the expense of the consumer who loses that control, and winds up paying the same amount of money for a much cheaper product when you cut out packaging and distribution and so on. That's an issue right there that gamers themselves need to head off, people complain about a lot of the digital stuff, but we still keep pariticipating in it. If we stopped buying digital products, then the industry would produce the products we as a group still generally prefer. A "disc in hand" that isn't dependant on online connections, third party services remaining in existance, and similar things.
Sure Miller, whatever. Just keep your lousy hands off my favorite devs, okay? 'Cause I know yer gonna force ridiculous deadlines on 'em and after yer done sucking the life outta their IPs yer gonna toss 'em aside and go hunting for new blood, you glittery blood-sucking cunts.
That is not true about raw capitalist logic. Raw Capitalist logic is more like Valve. On the other hand, you are completely right about how surprised people are.Fronzel said:
OT: They are the worst offenders of how they treat the people who invest money into their products.
The reasons to hate Activision are best laid out elsewhere, but this list will do:
1) They have a tendency to let good franchises die off, and keep bad franchises going and milking those out with as many expansions/sequels as possible. All at the price of the games quality.
2) They don't truly appreciate video games.
3) They don't value the opinion of the video gaming community, even when suggestions are reasonable.
I find the biggest offense on the list to be number 4 personally. So I don't really buy any of their products. They are not worth the headache that comes with them.
The way he noted Guitar Hero dying out is without any thought what so ever. The truth is, the reason the extra peripherals were a bad idea is because they would re-release them with every new iteration. Under his logic, the game should NEVER have been popular. Anyone can compete digitally, but not if you keep releasing new instruments. I mean, after the first game or two, they should have used a micro transaction system to release sequels digitally. You buy the content you want. But, they also would have had to not try and sell them like they do the map packs for Blops, so they would have failed their too.
Edit: It is not activision's fault small development companies are sold to them. The problem is that the companies either have greedy owners who are for sale to the highest bidder, or they are publicly traded. The first one is only one persons fault, the second should stand as a reason why it may not be worth while to make money in the short by going public, the risks are always that someone could buy the majority of the stock. On the other hand, the owner should not sell off 51% of a company when it's publicly traded, but that is greed for you.
Contrary to popular belief, greed is not good for business.
Somewhat ironic, considering the mess Infinity Ward got made into, and the fact Activision have recently closed down the Geometry Wars developers, never mind the Guitar Hero cow... Somewhat less beautiful now that it's all dead and corpsified.
Tell you what, Mr. Activision, man, I'll cut you a deal - try and run your company with a modicum of common sense and business sense, and maybe gaming fans will stop kicking you in the balls!
Tell you what, Mr. Activision, man, I'll cut you a deal - try and run your company with a modicum of common sense and business sense, and maybe gaming fans will stop kicking you in the balls!
I don't really care about the business side of their company, honestly. I think they really misunderstand people. Saying "they have to take risks" is bullshit, their biggest source of income is World of Warcraft. And they put out, what? 10 Guitar Hero games. It's not about peripherals, there are plenty of households out there with plastic guitars. It's about them thowing an assload of money at the project and pumping out a new one every few months and expecting them all to sell the same amount at the same price. It just doesn't work that way.
I honestly think they should stop pulling the "woe is the rich corporation" routine and start using that money to support some good games. Not safe games, good games. And maybe they'll help evolve the industry to a point where they don't need to saturate it with subscriptions and franchises to feel safe.
I honestly think they should stop pulling the "woe is the rich corporation" routine and start using that money to support some good games. Not safe games, good games. And maybe they'll help evolve the industry to a point where they don't need to saturate it with subscriptions and franchises to feel safe.